The separation of church and state has nothing to do with what people think, it restrains congress from endorsing any religion, officially, or denying any religion officially. Individuals are still entitled to their opinions - nor are they barred from service - whatever those opinions may be.

He may have been a SC Justice, but he wasn't god. He expressed HIS opinion.

And so have you! However, I feel he was right and you are wrong and John Jay was much more brilliant than yourself. That is MY opinion. Also, Kerry claims to be a Roman Catholic but he doesn't obey the teaching of that church.

First U.S. Supreme COURT CHIEF JUSTICE John Jay (1745-1829) said the following:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of OUR CHRISTIAN NATION, to select and prefer CHRISTIANS for our rulers."

(So much for the silly notion of Separation of CHURCH and state) The Founding Fathers DID select this man and placed him in the Supreme Court. THEY MUST HAVE AGREED WITH HIM. HE NEVER HID HIS VALUES.

/bangs head on desk.

Your logic is flawed.

All apples are fruit. Some fruits are red.

By your logic, that would mean all apples are red which we both know isn't true.

They must have agreed with some of his views to have selected him as supreme court justice, that doesn't mean they agreed with all his views. When I cast my vote in an election for candidate A, does that mean I support everything he says or does? No, it means I support some parts of his platform, and I feel overall, he will do a better job than candidate B.

__________________ izme: You know...it's kind of nice to sit atop Civilized debate and look down below on all of the uncivilized master debating we are here...just out of the fight zone

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of OUR CHRISTIAN NATION, to select and prefer CHRISTIANS for our rulers."-John Jay

That's what my is to....not LittleNipper's comment...I have the feeling the same holds true with Val! Val???

Translation: Those blacks, women, indians, people that don't own property, impoverished immigrants and any other non-white, non-Christian people should just keep their damn mouths shut, and let the rich white men rule this country like the gods that they are!.....

Now see...you don't know that for a fact either! They could just as easily have agreed with all of his views! Only the dead know for sure!

But claiming they did, or didn't is a lie. Since we don't know, you can theorize that they agreed, and you can theorize they disagreed, but considering they wanted a country where people of any faith (or lack of) could live freely, and without persecution, wouldn't it be more likely that they did not agree...

...neither view is fact, but presenting one or the other as such, is a travesty to the forefathers of this nation, even if by chance that view is correct.

It's misguided conclusions like that which really annoy people. If you don't have enough facts, don't say MUST, say MIGHT, saying MUST is a misrepresentation of the facts.

First U.S. Supreme COURT CHIEF JUSTICE John Jay (1745-1829) said the following:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of OUR CHRISTIAN NATION, to select and prefer CHRISTIANS for our rulers."

(So much for the silly notion of Separation of CHURCH and state) The Founding Fathers DID select this man and placed him in the Supreme Court. THEY MUST HAVE AGREED WITH HIM. HE NEVER HID HIS VALUES.

I wouldn't go down that road as it cuts both ways. African Americans were referred to as "inferior beings" by SC justices and the founding fathers. Read the Dred Scott decision, as an example. So much for the "silly notion of equality among all men!"

As an aside, I don't criticize them for it (as would many liberals) as morality is always "relative" to the times. At the time of the American Revolution, very very few people saw any immorality in slavey. To the contrary, many thought that the life provided to slaves in the South was a much better life then they had in their native Africa. We look at that now as clearly an erroneous belief, but I think if "unfair" to call people "racist" in the derogatory sense in that time in our history.

I for one think it very important to separate church and state. One only has to look at the middle east to see the danger of not separating church and state. As Raeli said above, it is fine to hold Christian beliefs (or any other religion) as a person, but in one's official capacity as a SC justice, religion should not play a part in decision making. Certainly, it can shape one's beliefs as to right and wrong and there is nothing wrong with that.

By your logic, that would mean all apples are red which we both know isn't true.

They must have agreed with some of his views to have selected him as supreme court justice, that doesn't mean they agreed with all his views. When I cast my vote in an election for candidate A, does that mean I support everything he says or does? No, it means I support some parts of his platform, and I feel overall, he will do a better job than candidate B.

AND SO THE SEPARATION ISSUE SHOULD NOT MATTER TODAY EITHER. IF THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID NOT CARE-----WHY SHOULD THE DEMOCRATS
AND THE PRESENT MAJORITY OF THE SUPREME COURT? The separation of Church and State was ONLY one man's opinion (Thomas Jefferson) that he wrote in a letter to one Baptist Church that were concerned about STATE CONTROLLED RELIGION. It had nothing to do with excluding Biblical views or religious discussion publicly anywhere----least of all education including science.

THIS THREAD HAS EXPIRED.
Are you having the same problem?
We have volunteers ready to answer your question, but first you'll have to join for free. Need help getting started? Check out our Welcome Guide.